Typicality of Inanimate Category Exemplars in Aphasia Treatment: Further Evidence for Semantic Complexity Purpose The typicality treatment approach on improving naming was investigated within 2 inanimate categories (furniture and clothing) using a single-subject experimental design across participants and behaviors in 5 patients with aphasia. Method Participants received a semantic feature treatment to improve naming of either typical or atypical items within ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 2008
Typicality of Inanimate Category Exemplars in Aphasia Treatment: Further Evidence for Semantic Complexity
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Swathi Kiran
    University of Texas at Austin
  • Contact author: Swathi Kiran, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Texas, 1 University Station, Austin, Texas 78712. E-mail: s-kiran@mail.utexas.edu.
Article Information
Language Disorders / Aphasia / Speech, Voice & Prosody / Language / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 2008
Typicality of Inanimate Category Exemplars in Aphasia Treatment: Further Evidence for Semantic Complexity
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2008, Vol. 51, 1550-1568. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0038)
History: Received February 14, 2007 , Accepted April 3, 2008
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2008, Vol. 51, 1550-1568. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0038)
History: Received February 14, 2007; Accepted April 3, 2008
Web of Science® Times Cited: 30

Purpose The typicality treatment approach on improving naming was investigated within 2 inanimate categories (furniture and clothing) using a single-subject experimental design across participants and behaviors in 5 patients with aphasia.

Method Participants received a semantic feature treatment to improve naming of either typical or atypical items within semantic categories, whereas generalization was tested to untrained items of the category. The order of typicality and category trained was counterbalanced across participants.

Results Results indicated that 2 out of 4 patients trained on naming of atypical examples demonstrated generalization to naming untrained typical examples. One patient showed trends toward generalization but did not achieve criterion. Furthermore, all 4 patients trained on typical examples demonstrated no generalized naming to untrained atypical examples within the category. Also, analysis of errors indicated an evolution of errors as a result of treatment, from those with no apparent relationship to the target to primarily semantic and phonemic paraphasias.

Conclusion These results extend our previous findings (S. Kiran & C. K. Thompson, 2003a) to patients with nonfluent aphasia and to inanimate categories such as furniture and clothing. Additionally, the results provide support for the claim that training atypical examples is a more efficient method of facilitating generalization to untrained items within a category than training typical examples (S. Kiran, 2007).

Acknowledgments
This research was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant DC006359-03 and a New Century Research Scholars Grant from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation to the author. Thanks to Joyce Harris, Shilpa Shamapant, and Lisa Edmonds for their assistance during various stages of the project and Sarah Key DeLyria, Karen Abbott, Kimberly Mellen, Heather Wagner, and Maitreyi Vishwanathan for their role in data collection and error analysis. Finally, thanks to the participants in the experiment for their patience and cooperation.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access